How another wartime congressman sided with an enemy dictator - the Lincoln/Santa Anna speech

Collected Works of Lincoln ^ | January 12, 1848 | Abraham Lincoln

[Austin Willard Wright]

Was it better considered that the conservative peaceniks (including a majority of the GOP senators) who opposed the Kosovo war only a few years ago?

[GOPcapitalist]

Returning to your statement:

a very Clintonian president who clearly lied about the real Texas-Mexico border

Polk's position was that Texas' southern border was the Rio Grande - the border that had been Texas' as an independent Republic for a decade prior to its annexation. Santa Anna and Lincoln's position was that Texas' border was the Nueces River, and that Texas had not settled on the Rio Grande (aka the Rio Bravo) as its border upon winning its independence. If Santa Anna made that claim he was lying as the treaty he signed after San Jacinto indicates:

"Art. 3d. He (Santa Anna) will so prepare matters in the Cabinet of Mexico that the Mission that may be sent thither by the Government of Texas, may be well received, and that by means of negociations all differences may be settled and the Independence that has been declared by the Convention may be acknowledged

Art. 4. A treaty of Commerce, Amity and limits will be estab- lished between Mexico and Texas. The territory of the latter not to extend beyond the Rio. Bravo del Norte."

- Signed at the Port of Velasco on May 14, 1836 by David G. Burnet, President of the Republic of Texas, and by Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, President of Mexico

[GOPcapitalist]

Well, Lincoln's anti-war stance seems much better considered than today's "No blood for oil" crowd.

Not too much. He put forth a PC line of "no blood for territory" that has ever since been embraced by the leftist historians who desire the return of "Atzlan" to Mexico.

[Ditto]

So you think Texas' border with Mexico is at the Nueces River instead of the Rio Grande? Strange.

Not strange at all. Did you read the speech? Lincoln clearly shows that we had no claim either by treaty, by conquest, or by governence to the Rio Grande. The President lied. (Big surprise --- he was a Democrat.)

Now that's funny, especially considering that Lincoln said not one word against slavery in his speech.

He didn't have to. All the pro-war Southern members of congress made that point for him.

You mean all of Lincoln's words about it being an "unjustified" war don't sound like Dennis Kucinich or Jim McDermott? Strange.

Nope. They sound like the radical Libertarian arguments --- constitutional, anti-empire, rule of law etc.

BTW. Do you support Bush and the war or are you with Lou Rockwell and Pat Buchanan?

[GOPcapitalist]

Looks like just the opposite. Our excuses for invading Mexico were no more justified than Saddams excuses for invading Kuwait.

You may debate the justification of the resulting territorial acquisition from New Mexico west all you desire. What you cannot debate, though, is that the United States was in the right and Mexico in the wrong over the events that started the war and were its main purpose - the boundary of Texas.

That boundary was set at the Rio Bravo del Norte (Rio Grande) following the battle of San Jacinto in 1836. Between 1836 and 1845 when Texas existed as an independed Republic, Mexico repeatedly and constantly violated the sovereignty of that boundary and sent armies of invasion as far north as San Antonio. Following the annexation of Texas, Mexico, under the very same dictator who signed the original treaty setting the boundary at the Rio Grande, continued the long standing Mexican practice of violating it. Upon annexation, the U.S. stationed troops at the town of Port Isabel (near South Padre Island) to prevent further encroachments of the Texas border. On April 25, 1846 a Mexican army of several thousand again crossed the Rio Grande and attacked Zachary Taylor's forces. A week later, gun encampments in Matamoros on the other side of the Rio Grande began shelling Fort Brown on the Texan side (present day Brownsville).

These were direct acts of war against the United States and the State of Texas, Ditto. They were the simply the latest of several similar invasions of Texas by Mexico over the decade prior. Despite what left wing revisionists and enviro freaks like Henry David/David Henry Thoreau say, the United States was within every right to defend its border from the Mexican attacks, declare war against Mexico as a result of those attacks, and respond to those attacks by invading Mexico to conquer the amassed armies of the Mexican dictator who was waging them.

[GOPcapitalist]

Not strange at all. Did you read the speech? Lincoln clearly shows that we had no claim either by treaty, by conquest, or by governence to the Rio Grande.

Did it ever occur to you that Lincoln got his facts wrong or was lying in that speech? He even cited the WRONG treaty when he claimed it did not establish the border at the Rio Grande.

Here are the terms of that border, as signed by President Burnet of Texas and President Santa Anna of Mexico in May 1836 after the Battle of San Jacinto:

"Art. 4. A treaty of Commerce, Amity and limits will be established between Mexico and Texas. The territory of the latter not to extend beyond the Rio. Bravo del Norte."

If Lincoln knew of that treaty, which in explicit terms, defines the limit Texas territory at the Rio Bravo de Norte, aka the northern side of the Rio Grande, yet maintained that no such agreement existed, he was lying pure and simple.

BTW. Do you support Bush and the war or are you with Lou Rockwell and Pat Buchanan?

I'm with Bush and in fact have been calling for the U.S. to take action against the mohammedan world long before the present war ever came along.

[Ditto]

Treaties of Velasco
14 May 1836

The two treaties of Velasco were negotiated between officials of the ad interim government of the Republic of Texas and Santa Anna, the Mexican dictator and commander of forces, about three weeks after his capture by the Texans at the Battle of San Jacinto.

The "public" treaty, presented below, was to be published and implemented immediately after it was signed. A second "secret" treaty was to be implemented after the terms of the public treaty were fulfilled. In essence, the secret treaty provided for Santa Anna's immediate release in exchange for his recognition of Texas as an independent nation.

However, the treaties were soon violated by both parties. The Texas army blocked Santa Anna's release, as promised in the treaties. Meanwhile, the Mexican government declared void all of Santa Anna's acts while in captivity.

Source: http://shs.westport.k12.ct.us/jwb/Collab/West/Velasco.htm

I ask again. Did you actually read Lincoln's words above? You seem not to have.

[GOPcapitalist]

Meanwhile, the Mexican government declared void all of Santa Anna's acts while in captivity.

Yeah, and Cornwallis' surrender at Yorktown was similarly void since it happened after his army was defeated in battle as well. I guess that settles it then! Texas belongs to Mexico and the rest all belongs to the British crown!

[GOPcapitalist]

Meanwhile, the Mexican government declared void all of Santa Anna's acts while in captivity.

Yes Ditto, I did. His arguments are fraudulent. They rely upon the wrong treaty and forward an argument that is no more valid than the British claiming that Cornwallis' surrender "doesn't count" since it happened after he was defeated in battle.

[GOPcapitalist]

Oops. That should have been in response to your question about reading Lincoln's speech. Sorry.

[Ditto]

Yeah, and Cornwallis' surrender at Yorktown was similarly void since it happened after his army was defeated in battle as well.

That is actually a very good analogy to the treaty of Velasco. It simply ended that phase of the battle but it did not end the war nor did it establish boundries. It was 2 full years after Yorktown before the peace tready was signed ending the war and establishing recognized borders.

The Texas boundry was in dispute from the beginning. Even Congress recognized it in 1845 when the voted to annex Texas. A few years later, the slaveocrats used that dispute not to establish a final Texas boundry, but to take the entire southwest from Mexico -- California, New Mexico/Arizona, Colorado and Utah Territory since it was mostly south of 36'30" and open to further slave expansion under the Missouri Compromise. The war had nothing to do with the Texas border and everything to do with the expansion of slavery.

[GOPcapitalist]

That is actually a very good analogy to the treaty of Velasco. It simply ended that phase of the battle but it did not end the war nor did it establish boundries.

The public treaty did that. The private treaty, however, did something different. In it Santa Anna specifically agreed to formally acknowledge Texas' Independence when he returned to Mexico city:

"He will so prepare matters in the Cabinet of Mexico that the Mission that may be sent thither by the Govern- ment of Texas, may be well received, and that by means of negociations all differences may be settled and the Independence that has been declared by the Convention may be acknowledged"

It also specified what the boundaries, or "limits," of Texas' territory were to be:

"A treaty of Commerce, Amity and limits will be estab- lished between Mexico and Texas. The territory of the latter not to extend beyond the Rio. Bravo del Norte."

The war had nothing to do with the Texas border and everything to do with the expansion of slavery.

Now that's odd, considering that the only reason the war happened was the fact that Mexico marched a hostile army of several thousand men across the Texan border, as it had been doing against Texas on a regular basis every year or two for the previous decade, and used that army to attack an American troop encampment. As I said previously, debate to your heart's content about the legitimacy of taking the territory from New Mexico west. But as far as the war's start and primary purpose goes, it was a legitimate response to an invasion of American territory and an attack upon the State of Texas.

[GOPcapitalist]

"The war had nothing to do with the Texas border and everything to do with the expansion of slavery. "

Gee. That sure sounds familiar. Kinda like...

"The war has nothing to do with terrorism or 9/11 and everything to do with the acquisition of oil"

Like it or not, Lincoln carried the banner of an enemy dictator when his nation was at war in 1846. Now your only response for his inexcusable actions is to deny the events that brought about that war and claim, in their place, something less reputable.

[Ditto]

The public treaty did that. The private treaty, however, did something different. In it Santa Anna specifically agreed to formally acknowledge Texas' Independence when he returned to Mexico city:

And Al Gore signed the Kyoto Treaty. Does that bind us to the enviro-nazi sacm? No. The Senate has never ratified it and never will. The Mexican government never agreed to Velasco. Santa Anna did not have authority to commit the Mexican Government. Even at that, Velasco didn't define the border. It just said that Mexican troops would stay on the other side of the Rio Grande and Texican troops would not go within 5 leagues of the Rio Grande.

[Ditto]

"The war has nothing to do with terrorism or 9/11 and everything to do with the acquisition of oil"

Hmmmm? Then why were the first battles of the Mexican War were in California, not in Texas? It was not about the Texas border --- it was about getting the land we had tried to purchase from Mexico years before.

[GOPcapitalist]

Hmmmm? Then why were the first battles of the Mexican War were in California, not in Texas?

The first battle, as in the one that caused America to declare war, was on May 8, 1846 in Palo Alto after the Mexican army crossed the Rio Grande into Texas.

[GOPcapitalist]

And Al Gore signed the Kyoto Treaty. Does that bind us to the enviro-nazi sacm?

Al Gore was not president of the United States nor was he a dictator with the authority to bind us to it.

The Mexican government never agreed to Velasco. Santa Anna did not have authority to commit the Mexican Government.

Yes he did. Santa Anna was a dictator who used his rule to supersede the Mexican constitution. There were indeed challenges to his rule throughout his many reigns including those of opposition legislatures declaring to invalidate his actions, but his power was ultimately dictatorial and therefore binding of his state.

Even at that, Velasco didn't define the border.

Yes it did. Did you not read my many previous posts in which I quoted directly from the treaty? Here it is again: "Art. 4. A treaty of Commerce, Amity and limits will be established between Mexico and Texas. The territory of the latter not to extend beyond the Rio. Bravo del Norte."

It just said that Mexican troops would stay on the other side of the Rio Grande and Texican troops would not go within 5 leagues of the Rio Grande.

I don't see anything about five leagues in that particular treaty. I do however see something that says that "the territory" of Texas stops at "the Rio. Bravo del Norte."

[Ditto]

Maybe we're looking at differend treaties. Here's the one I'm using. It's the same one Lincoln used.

The Avalon Project at Yale Law School
Treaty of Velasco : 14 May 1836

Art 1

Art 2

Art 3

Art 4

Art 5

Art 6

Art 7

Art 8

Art 9

Art 10

Articles of an agreement entered into, between His Excellency David G. Burnet, President of the Republic of Texas, of the one part, and His Excellency General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, President General in Chief of the Mexican Army, of the other part.

Article 1st

General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna agrees that he will not take up arms, nor will he exercise his influence to cause them to be taken up against the people of Texas, during the present war of Independence.

Article 2nd

All hostilities between the mexican and texian troops will cease immediately both on land and water.

Article 3rd

The mexican troops will evacuate the Territory of Texas, passing to the other side of the Rio Grande del Norte.

Article 4th

The mexican Army in its retreat shall not take the property of any person without his consent and just indemnification, using only such articles as may be necessary for its subsistence, in cases when the owner may not be present, and remitting to the commander of the army of Texas or to the commissioner to be appointed for the adjustment of such matters, an account of the value of the property consumed--the place where taken, and the name of the owner, if it can be ascertained.

Article 5th

That all private property including cattle, horses, negro slaves or indentured persons of whatever denomination, that may have been captured by any portion of the mexican army or may have taken refuge in the said army since the commencement of the late invasion, shall be restored to the Commander of the Texian army, or to such other persons as may be appointed by the Government of Texas to receive them.

Article 6th

The troops of both armies will refrain from coming into contact with each other, and to this end the Commander of the army of Texas will be careful not to approach within a shorter distance of the mexican army than five leagues.

Article 7th

The mexican army shall not make any other delay on its march, than that which is necessary to take up their hospitals, baggage [---] and to cross the rivers--any delay not necessary to these purposes to be considered an infraction of this agreement.

Article 8th

By express to be immediately dispatched, this agreement shall be sent to General Filisola and to General T. J. Rusk, commander of the texian Army, in order that they may be apprised of its stipulations, and to this and they will exchange engagements to comply with the same.

Article 9th

That all texian prisoners now in possession of the mexican Army or its authorities be forthwith released and furnished with free passports to return to their homes, in consideration of which a corresponding number of Mexican prisoners, rank and file, now in possession of the Government of Texas shall be immediately released. The remainder of the mexican prisoners that continue in possession of the Government of Texas to be treated with due humanity -- any extraordinary comforts that may be furnished them to be at the charge of the Government of Mexico.

Article 10th

General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna will be sent to Veracruz as soon as it shall be deemed proper.

The contracting parties sign this Instrument for the above mentioned purposes, by duplicate, at the Port of Velasco this fourteenth day of May 1836.

David G Burnet
Ant. Lopez de Santa Anna
Jas Collinsworth, Sec of State
Bailey Hardeman, Secy of Treasury
T W Grayson, Atty General

Ant. Lopez de Santa Anna
David G Burnet
Jas Collinsworth, Secretary of State
Bailey Hardeman, Secy of Treasury
T W Grayson, Atty General

18th Century Page

Texas Page

Avalon Home Page

© 1997 The Avalon Project.

Notice Article 5 --- return the run away slaves. To the Mexican's credit, I don't think they ever did.

[GOPcapitalist]

For the record, here's the treaty which set the border at the Rio Grande. There is not one word of it that says anything about staying five leagues away from that border(though the public agreement that they signed did state that the two armies would stay five leagues away from each other). As I noted previously, Lincoln was quoting from the WRONG treaty and, IMHO, intentionally so. You need to understand, Ditto, that just because Lincoln said it doesn't make it so. The man was a habitual liar, and this speech was one of the many times when he did just that.

Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, General in Chief of the Army of Operations and President of the Republic of Mexico, before the Government established in Texas, solemnly pledges himself to fulfill the stipulations contained in the following Articles, so far as concerns himself.

Art. 1.

He will not take up arms nor cause them to be taken up against the People of Texas during the pres- ent War of Independence.

Art. 2d.

He will give his Orders that in the shortest time the Mexican Troops may leave the Territory of Texas.

Art. 3d.

He will so prepare matters in the Cabinet of Mexico that the Mission that may be sent thither by the Govern- ment of Texas, may be well received, and that by means of negociations all differences may be settled and the Independence that has been declared by the Convention may be acknowledged

Art. 4.

A treaty of Commerce, Amity and limits will be estab- lished between Mexico and Texas. The territory of the latter not to extend beyond the Rio. Bravo del Norte.

Art. 5th The prompt return of Genl. Santa Anna to Vera Cruz being indispensable for the purpose of effecting his solemn engagements, the Government of Texas will provide for his immediate embarkation for said port.

Art. 6th

This instrument being Obligatory on one part as well as on the other will be signed by duplicate, remaining folded and sealed untill the negociation shall have been concluded, when it will be restored to his Excellency General Santa Anna; no use of it to be made before that time unless there should be an infraction by either of the Contracting parties

Port of Velasco May 14. 1836

(Signed) David G. Burnet
Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna

James Collinsworth Sec. of State
Baily Hardiman Sec. of Treasury
P. H. Grayson Atty Genl.

[GOPcapitalist]

Maybe we're looking at differend treaties. Here's the one I'm using. It's the same one Lincoln used.

That indeed appears to be the case. I just posted the text of the treaty I am using.

There were two documents signed at Velasco - a public proclamation and a private treaty. The public proclamation announced to Texas that Santa Anna was to withdraw his armies from Texas. The second treaty laid out the legal agreement at Velasco, including the border and provisions for Santa Anna's departure and return to Mexico. It was kept private at the time because public sentiment in Texas wanted to extract vengeance against Santa Anna for his brutality at the Alamo and Goliad. They wanted him publicly executed, so the government had to be very careful about how it publicly said Santa Anna would be returned and about entering into agreements with him.

As I said previously, Lincoln was quoting from the WRONG treaty in that speech and probably intentionally so.